[lit-ideas] Re: Griceian Contextualism

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:02:20 -0400 (EDT)


In a message dated 7/29/2012 8:47:56  A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
For (ii) is not  the negation of (i): the negation of (i) is 'It is not the 
case that context is  everything', and this does not entail (ii) as it 
leaves open that context may be  something - even if it is something short of 
"everything".  

---
 
I guess I knew that when I was writing it. So I guess I meant to add in  
implicatures "for good measure", which I may, on a different occasion. 
 
I hope, too, that McEvoy addresses the point (if he finds one) in "Griceian 
 contextualism". For:
 
It was McEvoy who used the word 'context' (and W. O. was just echoing  
things), for which I re-quoted from Grice, "The general theory of context" with 
 
a CAVEAT. That to appeal to 'context' may, _pace_ Stanley (Jason Stanley) 
otiose  or gratuitous in most contexts. To that effect, I requoted, 
literally, the  utterance (NOT "My name is Mickey Mouse") that prompted McEvoy 
to use 
'context  is everyting' -- the utterance on Robin Hood airport as tweeted. 
To discuss  whether this is a 'joke' or not seems to general a point when we 
may have to  provide evidence of a more analytic kind as to what 
constitutes an utterance a  joke, as per the context.
 
Usually, Grice uses 'context' amusingly:
 
He is the grip of a vyse.
He is the grip of a vice.
 
as uttered, or as Austin prefered:
 
Ice cream!
I stink!
 
Is _context_ that disambiguates this? What is McCreery's point. Does  
reference to context ASSUME the idea of 'propositional content'? Is  
propositional content (as Griceian contextualists assume) PERVADED, or  
impregnated, or 
penetrated, by context? And so on.
 
In this case, you can add the implicatures of hyperboles:
 
Context is everything.
No: context is not everything. Context is something, though. BUT, if  
context is a mere _something_, then implicaturally, it is almost a "nothing".  
For what is the good of implicating via hyperbole that context (or Grice) is  
important if you are going to nitpick over a denial (via contrariness rather 
 than contradictoriness) of the same hyperbole? And so on.
 
But thanks for pointing out the above, though. 

Why was the Olympic an extravaganza? Do we need a contextualist analysis of 
 McCartney's Lyrics to "Hey Jude", line by line? (Perhaps we do).

Cheers,
 
Speranza
 
Refs.: Grice, The General Theory of Context.
--- Wiki: Contextualism.
--- Stanford Encyclopedia: Contextualism (without needing to go into the  
details of 'know' but focus rather on J. Stanley's more general contributions 
to  the issue qua issue in theoretical philosophy of language -- vide his 
essays  online, and his reliance on Grice).
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: